Every time someone in the public eye dies and the media saturates their shows with coverage, a huge debate busts out on DailyKos over when it is OK to cover the negative aspects of that person’s life. So naturally, with such a controversial figure as Michael Jackson passing away this week, there have been some very heated discussions going on there. At issue in particular was that MSNBC and NBC put Maureen Orth on the TV within hours of Jackson’s death knowing full well she was going to go 100% negative. Here is a quick link synopsis of what she was saying right away. I have to admit that while a part of me believes what she is saying 100% true – a larger part of me cringed to hear it so quickly. Perhaps there was the irony of WHO was saying these things? After all, she is the widow of Tim Russert who also died quite suddenly of heart failure. While he was not nearly as world wide popular or controversial, he still had his critics and you be damn sure if she and her son had heard ANY of those things within even a few days – let alone HOURS – of Tim’s death that they would have been even more devastated.
And there in lies the rub I think. Because no matter how heainous someone may have been while living, they were still someones loved one. Someone’s child, sibling, parent, grandparent, left long friend etc. And I think the issue is one of respect for THEIR feelings and grief over the loss vs trying to protect the reupatation of the recently deceased. After all, the deceased is..well…dead! Nothing you say is going to hurt THEM anymore.
So clearly I fall on the side of zipping lips for a short period of time. But for how long? And what’s the scale of how bad the deceased has to be before you don’t even bother with respecting their family? Ted Bundy bad?
What do you think?
5 responses so far ↓
deepfish // June 27, 2009 at 4:13 pm |
Depends on the deceased. I would, at a bare minimum, wait for the corpse to get cold. I would do this not out of concern for the dead louse or for those that might still mistakenly support him/her, but because its a sign of respect for humanity.
It depends on the case, how much I *know*, and how much I care, I guess.
I follow the Father Duddleswell approach to Catholic theology – church tradition requires that we believe in the existence of hell, but only a true madman would believe that there is anyone there…
ybonesy // June 27, 2009 at 6:55 pm |
I kind of felt the opposite, in that I right away was consumed with grief over the loss. And then I couldn’t help but think, But he slept with young boys and thought that was beautiful!
When someone is a celebrity or in the public eye, I’m not sure there is the same etiquette that governs how we behave with friends or family. I think Orth’s journalist training and ethics drive her to never let compassion override truth.
At least we normal folks can do both—mourn the extraordinary child and entertainer and artist he was, and in the process perhaps mourn even more for the sickness and demons he carried inside.
klamothe // June 28, 2009 at 1:26 pm |
I used to be a reporter, and your mileage may vary, but I think the obituary has to be reasonably balanced. In Tim Russert’s case, I remember reading at least one obituary in which it was mentioned (albeit briefly) that people criticized his work or at least his techniques. Granted, it may not have been one of those which came out right after his death, but it was mentioned. But generally, his life off the job was considered private, and the criticisms did not rise to the level of serious (legal) accusations.
Jackson’s situation is different because he was much more public and faced some serious accusations, particularly in the child molestation cases. Those cases, and the 1990s financial settlement of one of them, would be part of the public record, as would the acquittal in the case a decade later. I don’t think reporters could avoid discussing those things or the mortgages and other financial problems.
I would add that the media got slammed (correctly) after Nixon died, for not mentioning Watergate, the Checkers scandal and the Hiss case, all on the public record. The coverage there was called a big whitewash.
To me, the distinction is between relatively mild criticism (Russert) and serious allegations of misconduct (Jackson and Nixon). That said, the “all Jackson all the time” coverage was ghoulish and unnecessary.
ramblingmom // June 28, 2009 at 8:26 pm |
While I might have (at some time) said a thing or two (though I can’t recall right now), I’d have to say that generally the “don’t speak ill of the dead” policy sounds like a good one. Generally I find it a good idea to take the high road.
LazyBuddhist // June 29, 2009 at 11:35 pm |
In a perfect world, out of respect for the family, and particularly any surviving young children, the criticism and such should wait until after the funeral.
But, I also understand the impulse to set the record straight. When someone like Michael Jackson dies I think there is a tendency for fans and media to over-romanticize and exaggerate his achievements. Which leaves those who are not so smitten in a position of trying to give the world a reality check in an effort to get a more balanced view out there in the media. And since the media wants to get as much mileage as they can out of the event, the whole lurid story gets told again and again and again.